mcgilldebatefandomcom-20200213-history
The Vinay Opp
Overview This is an opposition tactic in Canadian Parliamentary debate. The opposition team countercases with the specific intent of co-opting all of the presented Government benefits while retaining a distinction that highlights a flaw in the original government case. Typically this can be done when the Government presents a case with a compelling goal, but frames the case so that it overreaches that goal in a negative way. The Vinay Opp then results in Opposition presenting a case that "trims the fat", offering a countercase that still achieves the intended effect while mitigating potentially negative outcomes. When to use The Vinay Opp 1) When government's case is intuitively compelling and standard opposition is difficult. Oftentimes this manifests in cases that are "sexy" or have siginficant emotional impact, while the opposition side is cerebral and awkward to articulate. 2) When the framing of Government's case is such that it "overreaches" or tries to do too much. That is, you can identify an alternative model of the case which maintains those benefits but is less extensive and/or has fewer harms. 3) When you are Vinay. The basic idea is that you can punish teams that run "sexy", but sloppy, cases by being cleverer than they are. The fact you can have the Vinay Opp used against you is a good reason to ensure that your constructed cases address the key issues in the most efficient way possible, and nothing more. Example of an Effective Vinay Opp 1) The Government presents the case that "don't ask, don't tell" should be repealled, and predominately focuses on the negative effects of discrimination in the military. 2) Opposition constructs a "Vinay Opp" by countercasing that the military should retain the "don't ask" portion of the policy. Why it works: Government's intended goal is to end discrimination in the military on the basis of sexual orientation. Opposition co-opts this by suggesting that the active policy of "don't ask" is helpful insofar as it means that openly speculating or questioning members of the military about their sexual orientation would not be tolerated. Opposition's case then allows queer members of the military to out themselves if they wish, but protects them from potentially harmful speculation or questioning if they decided to keep their sexuality private - something Government's case does not explicity do. As Government built their case on the premise of protecting sexual minorities, the Vinay Opp undercuts their case and essentially flips the burdens of the debate in an unexpected way. Government must now defend why "don't ask" is inappropriate in order to win, and this likely results in them having to packpedal on their position of maximizing minority protection. This tactic is mostly effective in that Government is almost certainly unprepared for the position they will have to take in the Minister of the Crown speech, and that the Prime Minister's speech is almost wasted as Opposition co-opts all the benefits they present. Because of this, when the Vinay Opp is done properly, it is deadly. Example of an Incorrect Vinay Opp 1) Government presents the case that Mecca should be open to all "people of the book." Their goal is increased religious understanding and cross-cultural exchange. An important caveat that Government articulates is that, in Islam, members of other Abrahamic relgions have a special status in that they share some or all of the prophets prior to Muhammad, and thus are considered "people of the book." 2) Opposition attempts to Vinay Opp the proposed goal of government by suggesting that Mecca be opened to people of all religions. While it does take Government's benefits, this also adds potential harms and is therefore not a true Vinay Opp. Why it doesn't work: The Government closely tailored their case to meet their goal, and here Opposition is actually extending the original case with their countercase. This makes it a "+1" countercase rather than a Vinay Opp, which would likely reduce, or at the least maintain, the scope of the case. The second issue, closely related, is that by extending the case they take on harms that Government caveated out. While it is at least somewhat plausible that moderate and liberal Muslims would accept the presence of other "people of the book" worshipping in a Holy Center, the arguments that make that plausible do not exist for other religions. Here Opposition has conceded the benefits that Government presents, while trying to defend it. This flips the burdens of the debate, but Government does not need to deviate from their original position and Opposition has placed itself in a situation where it is on the defensive. A Note: If Government had presented the case that Mecca should be open to worship for people of all religions, then countercasing that it should only be open to the people of the book would be a true, and effective, Vinay Opp. Category:Strategy&Tactics